trivia

[David Howe]

"Owen Lewis" <oml@eloka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Not infrequently and some of them are genuinely to be supped with using a
> spoon tied to the end of a long bargepole. However I remain unimpressed by
> the threat you hypothecate.
There is always the "degrees of separation" thing. assume you have a
provably innocent correspondent. now assume one of THEIR correspondents is
now a convicted criminal. if they are investigated, then you will be a known
correspondent of a suspect.....

> How is A to put B into such a position inadvertently? I think that if A is
> suspected of a serious crime and has been in enciphered correspondence
with
> B, then B might be asked to deliver up correspondence or key. Fair enough.
> There *has* been correspondence and there *is* (or has been) a secret key
> that was once in my possession. Were I 'B', I'd have the key and would
> deliver as demanded (albeit without the best of grace).
ok, imagine the following.
A and B want to have a encrypted conversation, and have secure (ssh
tunnelled) mail.
A generates a key he does not upload, in your name; his correspondent does
similarly. both change their keys to their own name, and send a copy in that
form. mail is saved off WITHOUT headers in a subdirectory, which is simple
enough to do, and both correspondents are careful never to use each other's
name.
now, one gets arrested; the other immediately uploads the public key (in
your name) he holds for HIS private key, and the public key (in the others
name) to the keyservers, then secure-wipes his private key for that
exchange.  what is more likely? that they will pursue all the possible
correspondents for the suspect, or that they will take the name on the key
at face value and come looking for you?